Fisher’s Hill: Analyzing and Selecting Sources

• E history

1. About page

• Map
• ABPP

How do these pieces of Renaissance artwork convey key value(s) of the Renaissance?

Massaccio, The Adoration of the Magi

This painting is heavily influenced by Christianity, and illustrates realism.  The onlookers onto Christ all seem like normal people with nothing special about them, which is realistic.  The use of Chiaroscuro between the holy and non-holy figures sets the perspective on Jesus. There is also a vanishing point in the cave-like structure off in the distance, which also puts the focus on Jesus.

Botticelli, The Cestello Annunciation

This paintings, again heavily influenced by Christianity, is a very idealistic depiction of Gabriel telling Mary that she will give birth to a holy baby boy.  The house itself is very sophisticated, colorful, and detailed, and this illustrates how Mary is a figure of high importance.  The chiaroscuro shown in the colors of each figure’s clothing draws a great deal of attention, as well as gives each figure a very idealistic depiction of themselves. Humanism is also shown in this painting.  The open window that shows a view of the entire town is a vanishing point, but it also is an example of an aerial perspective.  The fact that this event is occurring in a place so high up and with such a nice view of the town gives it a sense of importance, thus illustrating how these humans are of utmost importance.

Raphael, The Betrothal of the Virgin

This picture again is heavily influenced by Christianity.  It depicts realism in that although this event is very important in the Christian religion, everyone in the picture seems fairly normal.  The large structure in the distance is a vanishing point that gives this wedding between Mary and Joseph a great sense of importance, because they seem to be much closer t0 the viewer and thus much larger.

Comparing Cimabue and Giotto

I first looked at these, and wondered why I would even be comparing these because they looked so similar.  I just stared at the two for a few minutes, and then I began to picture in my mind what the two paintings were depicting.  Both have very light backgrounds, maybe even gold, as well as the Virgin Mary, baby Jesus, and angels.  This meant that the paintings were probably set in heaven, which shows that they both were depicting a religious idea.  However, though these paintings have very strong similarities, it’s the differences in these similarities that differentiate the two from each other.  Cimabue depicts a very graceful Mary, one lacking a sense of power within herself, and a group of angels all surrounding Mary’s throne, each seeming to be of as great importance as the others.  Giotto, on the other hand, depicts a much more full and powerful Mary, with angels surrounding the throne and blocking each other with their halos.  This causes Mary and Jesus to be the focal point of the painting, which is very different from the Cimabue depiction.

After watching a video of commentary between Dr. Beth Harris and Dr. Steven Zucker, I truly realized how much these two paintings are unique.  As told by Harris and Zucker, the Cimabue has a variety of perspectives, while the Giotto has a bit more specific perspective.  It seems as though the Cimabue can be viewed from below, above, or straight on, which is interesting in that the artist was not only able to do this successfully, but that the painting itself reflects a variety of different ideas, depending on what view point you take.  The Giotto can also be viewed from below, above, or straight on, but the large and powerful Mary makes it seem that the painting has a definite head on view point.  The prophets on the top row of the followers create a horizontal plane, and this horizontal plane allows for the viewer to look from above or below.  However, to do so, one must take a head on viewpoint.  The video made me think of the different perspectives as well as the differences in the figures.

Gian Galeazzo Visconti

Gian Galeazzo Visconti was born in the year 1351, which was right around the time that the Renaissance came about. He was the son of Galeazzo II Visconti, who then ruled over the Visconti family’s Milanese territories alongside his brother, Bernabo.  After his father died in 1378, Gian Galeazzo Visconti inherited half of the territories, while his uncle, Bernabo, was given the other half.  Bernabo taxed the living hell out of his territories, which defined his lust for power.  He attempted to eliminate Visconti and overtake his territories, which Visconti obviously did not take too kindly.  In 1785, he invited Bernabo over to his kingdom, and as he greeted his uncle, some of his body guards seized Bernabo and imprisoned him.  Visconti then immediately sent some of his troops from Padua, the base of his rule, into Bernabo’s territories, and they began to occupy all the strong points within the territories.  Due to Visconti’s peaceful, religious, and reasonable government style that he ruled Pavia by, these new territories immediately greeted Visconti with open arms.  Now that Visconti controlled all the Visconti family’s territories of Milan, he was ready to fulfill his dream of conquering all of Italy.  He began by first lowering taxes within his own kingdom so that he would maintain an approval rating.  He then hired generals to lead his troops on a series of conquests to different parts of Italy.  After taking a few of the northern territories, such as Padua and Verona, he set out to conquer the southern Papal States, who were very weak and vulnerable.  He overtook these states with ease, and by doing so he became one of the most feared and powerful tyrants in all of Italy.  However, Visconti was not all about conquering.  He was also an able ruler.  He introduced a new law code with an advanced health care system as well as a stable bureaucracy.   Soon afterwards, Milan became one of the wealthiest kingdoms in Italy.  With all of this money, Visconti set out to improve his kingdom in different ways.  He established two universities, the University of Milan and the University of Pavia.  He constructed the Cathedral of Milan, which was a massive Italian Gothic building that still stands today. He began the Certosa di Pavia, a monastery complex built in Lombardy.  Finally, in 1402, Visconti successfully overtook Florence and established his powerful kingdom.  At the peak of his power, Visconti died the same year of a disease.

Visconti resembled the key values of the Italian Renaissance in a few ways.  For starters, he exemplified individualism in the way that he conducted his rule over Milan.  He killed his uncle and overtook his territories, and afterwards he set out to conquer all of Italy.  He stayed true to his own ideas and dreams, and he conducted himself in ways that allowed him to pursue his dreams.  His dream of conquering all of Italy, just like Ancient Rome, also shows his sense of classicism.  While his act of conquering Italy was an example of both individualism and classicism, the way he governed his kingdom showed other key values of the Renaissance.  He introduced a new law code with an advanced health care system as well as a stable bureaucracy, and in doing so he set out for economic growth. He also helped establish two colleges.  This exemplified humanism, in that he focused on his own ambitions and disregarded the potential downfalls of others.  However, at the same time he continued to promote religion.  He built Cathedral of Milan, and his act of preserving religion illustrated the value secularism.

• http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404706636.html

• http://books.google.com/books?id=5oUIhm81B-gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=a+distant+mirror+the+calamitous+14th+century&ei=WtFZS-KoM5jCNI_46dkL&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certosa_di_Pavia

The Battle of Fisher’s Hill

When I first saw the numerous amount of history stubs on Wikipedia, I became dumbfounded.  I had absolutely no idea what I was going to choose as my topic.  I’ve always been interested in the Civil War, and my dad is an extreme “history buff” in regards to this topic.  He knows just about everything there is to be known about the war.  I asked him about some of the battle sites that I have either visited or been in the area of, considering the fact that I’ve been up in the Virginia area a few times.  He mentioned the Battle of Fisher’s Hill, one of the history stubs on Wikipedia, which was in the Shenandoah Valley.  His best friend lives in Shenandoah County, so I’ve been there three or four times while visiting his friend, and therefore I know the area pretty well.  I thought, why not learn about the battle that took place here? Luckily for me, my dad has a collection of hundreds of books on the Civil War, and there is enough information within those book for me to become a complete expert on everything that happened in the Battle of Fisher’s Hill.  I will start my research by looking through his books.  Many of them are told from either a Confederate or Union perspective, so I’ll have to read whatever sources I find that may be helpful and make sure that I only use facts, not opinions, as my research.  Reading information that is heavily one-sided may still give me a substantial amount of information about the battle, so eliminating books with strong perspectives is not necessarily crucial, so long as I keep a neutral perspective in my writing.  After I search for helpful books within my dad’s collection, if I don’t already know enough about the battle or I come across a few muddy topics, I can use the internet for sources.  I’m pretty certain that the information from the books will be enough to me to be successful in my writing.  This assignment may be difficult because it essentially goes against everything we have been taught on writing.  Writing in a neutral perspective will be the m0st difficult part for me, because I might initially end up just stating the facts directly from my research.  I also might leave out a few important details initially.  However, I think I can eventually write an entry up to Wikipedia’s standards.

Historical Puzzle

Due to the significance of the arrival of Islam on the Iberian Peninsula in about the early eight century B.C.E., many accounts have been written about it. There are six in particular that show the difference in the Muslim and Christian opinions of the event due to their respective time periods, topics, usage of dates, and points of view. These six documents each present a different perspective on the arrival of Islam on the Iberian Peninsula, and moreover they present clues that highlight religious opinions of the event from different time periods.

The documents written by Christians, 1 and 2, were fairly easily identified because of their use of the Christian calendar to name specific dates, as well as their focus on the Spaniards and Christianity in general being the major topic of discussion. Document 1 was probably the easiest document to identify the writer because it says, “in the year of Our Lord 713,” which is a straight reference to the Christian calendar. However, it focused solely on Spaniards and Christians, in a particularly positive tone, which would mean that it would have to be written by a Christian. Document 2 uses the words, “amen,” as well as “the judgement of God,” which makes the identification of this document as Christian a pretty easy one to discover. In fact, it is a very similar to document 1 in the sense that it references Christian terms, uses the Christian calendar, and mainly focuses on the Spaniards and Christians. Overall, these documents were very different from the others written by Muslims. They offered no insight to the Muslim religion. Although the other four each made some references to Christians, some more than others, at least they made an attempt to highlight facts of both religions. The Christian documents had very narrow perspectives.

The four documents written by Muslims, 3, 4, 5, and 6, were not nearly as easy to identify as the Christian documents because of their wide variety of views on both religions, as well as the use of both calendars throughout these four documents. Document 4 was the most obvious out of the bunch, due to its use of the Arabic Calendar as well as its main focus on the Muslims.  This document is very negative regarding Roderic, which is quite similar to the Christian documents. Document 5 was the next easiest to identify.  It talked of Arabs predominately, and its view on Spaniards was pretty negative, especially towards Roderic.  The fact that this document states how, “Almighty God caused Rodrigo and his men to perish” also is pretty convincing evidence that this document was written by a Muslim. Document 3, being the next hardest to identify, really has only one piece of evidence that proves that it was written by a Muslim.  When the document quotes, “Tariq realized that the backbone of the Gothic resistance had been broken and that the kingdom could be taken,” it puts into a Muslim perspective of how the Christians had been broken with the loss of Roderic.  Why would a Christian document say such?  It wouldn’t.  Document 6, the final document, was very hard to identify.  It uses both calendars to tell dates and tells a story from both perspectives.  Why is it then written by a Muslim? Well, it does say, “Spain was laid waste and torn apart not only be external invasion but also by internal conflict,” which, again, no Christian would ever write.  The document is also more positive towards Muslims than Christians.  Though really it could have been written by either a Muslim or a Christian, a Muslim would make more sense.  Overall, these documents provided much more insight to both sides of each story, much more than the Christian documents.

Einhard: Life of Charlemagne

Einhard’s Life of Charlemagne is a biography of his friend, Charlemagne.  The descriptions that Einhard reveals of Charlemagne are probably not inaccurate, therefore making this a reliable source on the life of Charlemagne.  The document is, however, somewhat one-sided in the sense that Charlemagne is portrayed very positively, with no sense of negativity shown anywhere in the document.  For example, when Einhard describes Charlemagne’s physical attributes, he says that, “his appearance was always stately and dignified, […] his gait was firm, […] his health was excellent” (Einhard # 22).  This is a brief summary of his description, and there is no negativity in it.  It only describes his positive attributes.  It seems like this document was written after the death of Charlemagne, considering that it talks of his final days living.  This might be another reason why the document is so positive.  Einhard might have written these descriptions so that his friend would not be thought of negatively after his death, which also makes sense.  Either way, the tone of the document is very positive, and maybe a tad bit biased.

Chapters 8,9,12 ID Terms

ID Terms

• Theodoric
• Byzantine Empire
• Justinian
• Hagia Sophia
• Lombards
• Arabs
• Muhammad
• Quran
• Islam–>Muslims
• Sharia
• Caliph
• Arab Expansion
• Jihad
• Holy War
• Constantinian Model
• Clovis
• Thorgeirr Thorkelsson
• Vladimir
• The Rus
• Orthodox Christianity
• Christian Monasticism
• Steppelands

“Rock Edicts” POV Analysis

Ashoka, King of Behar, ruled the Mauryan Empire from about 269 to 232 B.C.E.  He led a powerful military and conquered most of Southern Asia, first capturing the Kalinga empire, then after he was pronounced the emperor of the empire, he took everything from present-day Afghanistan to the southern tip of India.  He converted to Buddhism in 257 B.C.E., and afterwards he gave many sermons of his beliefs and achievements, mostly regarding Buddhism itself.  These “edicts” were inscribed into rocks and pillars, and they have been preserved and are thus readable today. 

Ashoka’s “edicts” were spread throughout the Mauryan Empire and were read by a wide variety of people.  He intened to express his ideology shift, from militarism to Buddhism, as well as to establish some kind of peace between his conquered states.  He wished to prove that he was no longer interested in conquests, but rather in a new way of life that was more peaceful and rewarding.  In one of his initial ones, called “The Fruit of Exertion,” he emphasized that although many gods are thought to exist in Southern Asia, they are not all real, and anyone who agrees with this belief can disregard their gods and partake in the study of Buddhism.  He also requests that anyone who wished to help him spread this message should inscribe it into rocks and pillars for all to see.  This “edict” was intended to unify those of all adiences who were unsure of their religious beliefs, no matter their social status.    Another one, titled “Summary of the Law of Piety,” attempts to shed some insight into the core of Buddhism. This one, intended for those interested in Buddhism, emphasized obedience to the religion.  Between these two surmons, Ashoka tried to convert anyone he could to Buddhism.  This attempt essentially proved his ideology had officially been altered. 

Through all of his edicts, Ashoka attempted to spread Buddhism and talk of the advantages and rewards of converting to it.  Though they were not read by everyone, anyone who read them must have understood the message because Buddhism became a popular religion in the Mauryan Empire.  His edicts worked.

The Greek Parthenon (447-432 BCE) VS. The Roman Pantheon (125 CE)

The Parthenon and the Pantheon, both large symbols of their respective cultures, have vast differences with a few similarities here and there.  The Pantheon, built by the Romans in 125 C.E., obviously came after the Parthenon, completed by the Greeks in 432 B.C.E. The Romans admired the Greek’s knowledge of geometry, and they incorporated this geometry in the building of the Pantheon.  This is one of the largest similarities between the two.  Another similarity is that both structures featured similar looking columns for support and style.

Besides for these two major similarities, the two structures are quite different. For starters, the Parthenon was built from marble while the Pantheon was predominately built from granite.  Also, the two structures appear very differently.

The Pantheon had a unique structure on it: a dome.  This dome was perfectly round and gave the Pantheon some character. It also allowed light to shed into the building.

The Parthenon was a doric temple, meaning that it was rectangular with a series of small steps on both sides  and with doric columns surrounding the interior.

These two have other similarities and differences, but the ones listed above are the most significant and noticeable.